Top speed Bf109G6 late vs La5FN @7000m

[schnorchel]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

Disagree.

Just did some tests cause i didn't believe it.

100% fuel, rads closed, Smolensk, La5f and Bf109G6 late, Stock 4.10.1. Speeds attained by getting to altitude and then accelerated up to top speed and holding for a min.

Here's the il2 compare data,



Bf109G6 late,



La5f



Both within a few of the il2 data, probably cause i used smolensk rather than crimea, but there still relative to each other.



Probably, even things like a bullrt proof windscreen shave of 3-4 mph, 150 kg's is 2 light adults.....

fruitbat,
you get similar result as mine. but what I said is the max speed that both plane can get without engine overheat.
I would like to say such Max speed is more useful in the combat. for sure G6 can get the top speed about 630km/h in few mintes. but after that she needs rad opena and throttle back. only 603 km/h she can get without overheat. but L5f can get 613-614km/h and never overheat with 110% throttle and Rad closed. such huge advantage cannot be ignored.

[WTE_Galway]

Overheating in older versions of IL2 was never a big issue as you got 6 minutes in overheat before damage occurred. Also any time you went out of overheat, even for a few seconds, the timer was reset and you got another 6 minutes before damage.

I recall being told the latest patch has changed that but I haven't tried it out.

[koivis]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

Overheating in older versions of IL2 was never a big issue as you got 6 minutes in overheat before damage occurred. Also any time you went out of overheat, even for a few seconds, the timer was reset and you got another 6 minutes before damage.

I recall being told the latest patch has changed that but I haven't tried it out.

Actually, the time varies from plane to plane and is between 1 and 10 minutes. The opposite end being the MiG-3 and most US radial engine planes. This being said, this is still very much the way it works (as of 4.10.1m). The only addition in 4.10 is the small random reliability feature. For example, last week in Il-2 Air Racing this feature hit me twice. First, with Pe-2 I certainly returned to "engine: normal" within the time, and just after the next overheat message, the left engine "fried". In the LaGG-3 race, my engine fried right after start, no overheat message ever appeared.

Also, mostly because of this feature, the fastest way to get from point a to b, is not avoiding the overheat message. Just as WTE_Galway said, you have to cool the engine at lower power, and when returning to normal, put it back to full power... and repeat.

The 4.11 patch, however, will completely remove the concept of "overheat time". Instead, the condition of the engine will depend on the various temperatures (cylinder, oil, water).

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by koivis

Actually, the time varies from plane to plane and is between 1 and 10 minutes. The opposite end being the MiG-3 and most US radial engine planes. This being said, this is still very much the way it works (as of 4.10.1m). The only addition in 4.10 is the small random reliability feature. For example, last week in Il-2 Air Racing this feature hit me twice. First, with Pe-2 I certainly returned to "engine: normal" within the time, and just after the next overheat message, the left engine "fried". In the LaGG-3 race, my engine fried right after start, no overheat message ever appeared.

Also, mostly because of this feature, the fastest way to get from point a to b, is not avoiding the overheat message. Just as WTE_Galway said, you have to cool the engine at lower power, and when returning to normal, put it back to full power... and repeat.

The 4.11 patch, however, will completely remove the concept of "overheat time". Instead, the condition of the engine will depend on the various temperatures (cylinder, oil, water).

Interesting.

yeah ... the 6 minutes was relating to the 109 which seemed to go roughly 6 minutes in overheat before damage occurred.

Did the Mig 3 really only last 1 minute in overheat ? That would be really annoying.

Naturally the whole thing is rather simplified. In real life the 1710 Allisons in the p38 fried the turbochargers well before engine overheat occurred for example. However there is a limit to how much detail its practical to model into a game.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by schnorchel

fruitbat,
you get similar result as mine. but what I said is the max speed that both plane can get without engine overheat.
I would like to say such Max speed is more useful in the combat. for sure G6 can get the top speed about 630km/h in few mintes. but after that she needs rad opena and throttle back. only 603 km/h she can get without overheat. but L5f can get 613-614km/h and never overheat with 110% throttle and Rad closed. such huge advantage cannot be ignored.

Ok, i see what you mean by 'max speed', but this is only ever relevant if you running away.....

If the la5 is behind you at that height, then,

1) you've done something bad already (don't we all from time to time).

2) the la5f is a pretty good plane, the 109 g6late isn't particularly.

However, you can still easily get away from an la5f in a 109g6late at that height. Run full power to get a bit of separation, then shallow dive, the 109 can dive up to speeds of 850kph before breaking up, the la5f 710kph. Run for home, call for help, fight another day when you have the advantage.

I don't know why you think that the 109g6 should be able to turn the tables on a la5f if i the la5f is behind, if the pilots are equal the plane being chased needs a substantial advantage to reverse the roles. 10kph either way is nothing, pilot error can make more difference.

Besides they're changing all the overheat stuff in 4.11 so we'll what's what then.

Some people such as myself always thought it was a joke that you could run around in a 109 at 103% power rads open all day long.......

10kmh is not a huge advantage either.......

[schnorchel]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

Some people such as myself always thought it was a joke that you could run around in a 109 at 103% power rads open all day long.......

10kmh is not a huge advantage either.......

So maybe you should think it was a big joke that la5f and la5fn could at 110% power Rad closed all day long above certain altitude(maybe 4000m, but I do not remeber the exact munber here)?

[WTE_Galway]

Originally Posted by schnorchel

So maybe you should think it was a big joke that la5f and la5fn could at 110% power Rad closed all day long above certain altitude(maybe 4000m, but I do not remeber the exact munber here)?

I am confused. Are you saying the in-game LA5 overheats too much or not enough ??



Note that it is very common for the SAME aircraft to be vulnerable to overheating related engine failure at low speed/altitude AND also be vulnerable overcooling related engine failure at high speed/altitude.

Amogst US aircraft, the P47 had overcooling issues at altitude and so did the p38. The p38 suffered such severe overcooling at high atitude in the ETO it caused turbocharger failure. Amusingly this has led to a rather curious myth amongst the less informed that the P38 was withdrawn form ETO operations because the PILOT got too cold due to poor cockpit heating. The plane suffered mechanical issues due to overcooling.

As far as the LA5fn goes it had severe overheat problems early in development but I had the impression as time went on it developed an overcooling issue instead. So not all LA5fn were the same.

[Herra Tohtori]

Regarding the differences between Bf-109 G-2 and G-6:

G-2 has 7.92mm cowling machine guns (2 x MG 17 weighs 20.4 kg without ammunition), G-6 has 13mm machine guns (2 x MG 131 weighs 33.2 kg without ammunition). Don't know how much the ammunition for these weapons weighed.

G-2 had semi-retractable tailwheel (like the F models). G-6 had a static tail wheel; it was taller than the tail wheel in earlier models to improve taxiing and take-off handling, but a lot of drag was added from it.

G-6 had bulges in the engine cowlings (for the breechblocks of the larger machine guns) as well as the top of the wing to accommodate larger main landing gear.

Additionally, G-6 had compatibility for lots of gimmicks (R- and U-subvariants) which also added bits of weight as far as I know.

If you also want to include the Tall Tail variants, the wooden large vertical stabilizer unit was heavier than the standard metallic tail and required a counterweight in the nose so that made the plane heavier still.

Late G-6 variants and K-variants obviously smoothed out a lot of the bulges in G-6, optimizing the airflow on their part. However, K-variants were the first ones to include a retractable tail wheel (which removed a lot of drag, obviously).

Those are the differences I can say right off the top of my hat.


Now, regarding the performance of Lavochkin fighters - I think it's pretty safe to say that their in-game performance scarcely reflects their historical performance. The main reason why they did so well on eastern front is because air operations there mainly occurred at lower altitudes - VVS fighters' typical mission profile was to escort IL-2's for ground attack, and at this they worked pretty well. If they needed to go past 3000 metres altitude they would have real problems keeping up with the 109's.

Additionally, the game doesn't model physical weathering... while on paper the Soviet aircraft could have been quite formidable, I am rather certain that in reality their care and maintenance was not exactly optimal and both the engines and airframes probably spent most of their life with lower performance than promised on the official specification.

[schnorchel]

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

I am confused. Are you saying the in-game LA5 overheats too much or not enough ??



Note that it is very common for the SAME aircraft to be vulnerable to overheating related engine failure at low speed/altitude AND also be vulnerable overcooling related engine failure at high speed/altitude.

Amogst US aircraft, the P47 had overcooling issues at altitude and so did the p38. The p38 suffered such severe overcooling at high atitude in the ETO it caused turbocharger failure. Amusingly this has led to a rather curious myth amongst the less informed that the P38 was withdrawn form ETO operations because the PILOT got too cold due to poor cockpit heating. The plane suffered mechanical issues due to overcooling.

As far as the LA5fn goes it had severe overheat problems early in development but I had the impression as time went on it developed an overcooling issue instead. So not all LA5fn were the same.

la5 does not overheat at all at altitude in game. comparing with that, i am really suprised that you said 109's overheat model is a joke. this makes it can beat 109easliy up to 10000m. does it make sense according to history record?

[JtD]

Forsazh in the La-5, La-5F, La-5FN or La-7 does not work in 2nd charger gear. This is modelled by the game internally, you can also see it in il-2 compare as in 1st gear it gains 30+ km/h with 110%, in second only about 5 km/h. The only reason it gains something at all is that flying with 110% also increases engine rpm a little bit over the 100% setting (most noticeable effect above FTH of 2nd gear).

So when you're flying the La at 110% at altitude, you're actually only flying it at 100%. It overheats about as much as a Bf 109 at 100%.